## Reduce type leakage between GraphQL schemas
### Why
Twenty runs two separate GraphQL schemas: **core** and **metadata**.
NestJS's `@nestjs/graphql` uses a global `TypeMetadataStorage` that
accumulates all decorated types across all modules. When each schema is
built, every registered type leaks into both schemas regardless of which
module it belongs to.
This means the core schema's generated TypeScript
(`generated/graphql.ts`) contained ~2,700 lines of types that only
belong to the metadata schema (and vice versa). This creates confusion
about type ownership, inflates generated code, and makes it harder to
reason about which API surface each schema actually exposes.
### How
**1. Patch `@nestjs/graphql` to support schema-scoped type resolution**
- **(Already done)** Added a `resolverSchemaScope` option to
`GqlModuleOptions`, allowing each schema to declare a scope (e.g.
`'metadata'`)
- `ResolversExplorerService` now filters resolvers by a
`RESOLVER_SCHEMA_SCOPE` metadata key, so each schema only sees its own
resolvers
- `GraphQLSchemaFactory` now performs a **reachability walk**
(`computeReachableTypes`) starting from scoped resolver return types and
arguments, only including types that are transitively referenced —
handling unions, interfaces, and prototype chains
- Type definition storage and orphaned reference registry are cleared
between schema builds to prevent cross-contamination
**2. Register `ClientConfig` as orphaned type in metadata schema**
Since `ClientConfig` is needed in the metadata schema but not directly
returned by a resolver, it's explicitly declared via
`buildSchemaOptions.orphanedTypes`.
**3. Regenerate frontend types and fix imports**
- `generated/graphql.ts` shrank by ~2,700 lines (types moved to where
they belong)
- `generated-metadata/graphql.ts` gained types like `ClientConfig` that
were previously missing
- ~500 frontend files updated to import from the correct generated file
## Fix resolver schema leaking between `/metadata` and `/graphql`
endpoints
### Summary
- Patch `@nestjs/graphql` to support a `resolverSchemaScope` option that
filters resolvers at both schema generation and runtime, preventing
cross-endpoint leaking
- Introduce `@CoreResolver()` and `@MetadataResolver()` decorators to
explicitly scope each resolver to its endpoint
- Move most resolvers (auth, billing, workspace, user, etc.) to the
metadata schema where the frontend expects them; only workflow and
timeline calendar/messaging resolvers remain on `/graphql`
- Fix frontend `SSEQuerySubscribeEffect` to use the default (metadata)
Apollo client instead of the core client
### Problem
NestJS GraphQL's module-based resolver discovery traverses transitive
imports, causing resolvers from `/metadata` modules to leak into the
`/graphql` schema and vice versa. This made the schemas unpredictable
and tightly coupled to module import order.
### Approach
- Added `resolverSchemaScope` to `GqlModuleOptions` via a patch on
`@nestjs/graphql`, filtering in both `filterResolvers()` (runtime
binding) and `getAllCtors()` (schema generation)
- Each resolver is explicitly decorated with `@CoreResolver()` or
`@MetadataResolver()`
- Organized decorator, constant, and type files under `graphql-config/`
following project conventions
Core GQL Schema: (see: no more fields!)
<img width="827" height="894" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/668f3f0f-485e-43f0-92be-4345aeccacb6"
/>
Metadata GQL Schema (see no more getTimelineCalendarEventsFromCompany)
<img width="827" height="894" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/443913db-e5fe-4161-b0e7-4a971cc80a71"
/>
**Before**
- any user with workpace_members permission was able to remove a user
from their workspace. This triggered the deletion of workspaceMember +
of userWorkspace, but did not delete the user (even if they had no
workspace left) nor the roleTarget (acts as junction between role and
userWorkspace) which was left with a userWorkspaceId pointing to
nothing. This is because roleTarget points to userWorkspaceId but the
foreign key constraint was not implemented
- any user could delete their own account. This triggered the deletion
of all their workspaceMembers, but not of their userWorkspace nor their
user nor the roleTarget --> we have orphaned userWorkspace, not
technically but product wise - a userWorkspace without a workspaceMember
does not make sense
So the problems are
- we have some roleTargets pointing to non-existing userWorkspaceId
(which caused https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/14608 )
- we have userWorkspaces that should not exist and that have no
workspaceMember counterpart
- it is not possible for a user to leave a workspace by themselves, they
can only leave all workspaces at once, except if they are being removed
from the workspace by another user
**Now**
- if a user has multiple workspaces, they are given the possibility to
leave one workspace while remaining in the others (we show two buttons:
Leave workspace and Delete account buttons). if a user has just one
workspace, they only see Delete account
- when a user leaves a workspace, we delete their workspaceMember,
userWorkspace and roleTarget. If they don't belong to any other
workspace we also soft-delete their user
- soft-deleted users get hard deleted after 30 days thanks to a cron
- we have two commands to clean the orphans roleTarget and userWorkspace
(TODO: query db to see how many must be run)
**Next**
- once the commands have been run, we can implement and introduce the
foreign key constraint on roleTarget
Fixes https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/14608
Closes https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/526
(for reminder:
1. Make defaultRoleId non-nullable for an active workspace
2. Remove permissions V1 feature flag
3. Set member role as default role for new workspaces
About 1.:
An active workspace's defaultRoleId should never be null.
We can't rely on a simple postgres NOT NULL constraint as defaultRoleId
will always be initially null when the workspace is first created since
the roles do not exist at that time.
Let's add a more complex rule to ensure that
About 3.:
In the first phase of our deploy of permissions, we chose to assign
admin role to all existing users, not to break any existing behavior
with the introduction of the feature (= existing users have less rights
than before).
As we deploy permissions to all existing and future workspaces, let's
set the member role as default role for future workspaces.
)
A user should not be able to delete their account if they are the last
admin of a workspace.
It means that if a user wants to sign out of twenty, they should delete
their workspace, not their account
Charles Bochet